What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What Happens To NFL Teams After Extreme W/L Records In One Possession Games (1 Viewer)

Anarchy99

Anarchy99

Footballguy
First I researched all team records from 2006-2015 to identify "extreme" records in one possession games. I arbitrarily selected +5 win differential and -5 loss loss differential as "extreme." By that I mean, I considered teams that went 6-1, 7-2, 0-6, etc. in one score games. I defined "one possession" as a W or L by 8 points or less.

In that 10 year stretch, there were 18 teams that had a differential of +5 in the win column in close games. There were 19 teams that had -5 on the wrong side of their ledger (5 more losses than wins in one possession game). I also looked up how those teams fared in season X + 1. I hypothesized that winning or losing close games would typically even out, as it is extremely difficult to keep winning close games (and equally unlikely to keep losing them). As a side note, I found that poor teams actually got more of their wins in close games, as they were unlikely to win many games by 9 or more points (but very likely to get trounced).

Of the teams with excellent records in one possession games, those team's records in close (one possession) games was a combined 129-27 (.827) in YEAR X. In YEAR X + 1, those teams combined to have a 73.5-65.5 (.525) record in one possession game. The overall win total of those teams fell off by an average of 3.25 wins. As a quirk, the only teams that actually improved their record the following year were the 2006, 2008, and 2012 Colts. But for 31 other franchises, having a +5 win differential in close games meant a decrease in their win total the following year.

For the teams on the wrong side of close games, they ALL had better overall record in all games the following season. In YEAR X, the combined record in one score games was 32-143 (.183). In YEAR X + 1, those teams posted a record of 89-77 (.536) in one score games. The average win total on average over the full season was +4 wins.

I am sure by now some of you are thinking WHO CARES?!? 

But the 2016 saw an inordinate number of teams that qualified in both the +5 wins and -5 losses categories in one possession games. OAK (9-2), MIA (8-2), NYG (8-3), and DAL (7-2) were the teams on the +5 wins side. JAX (2-8), LAC (4-9), CIN (1.5-6.5), PHI (1-6), and CHI (1-6) were the teams that things went south in close games.

Clearly not everything will work out exactly to previous patterns and averages, but based on history, the expected records of those teams this year would be:

OAK 12-4 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
MIA 10-6 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
NYG 11-5 in 2016 to 8-8 in 2017
DAL 13-3 in 2016 to 10-6 in 2017
JAX 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 to 10.5-5.5 in 2017
PHI 7-9 in 2016 to 11-5 in 2017
CHI 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017

W certainly can revisit this once the season is over to see the same trend continues. There may be other factors at play here as well (healthy teams vs. unhealthy teams, general regression or improvement to the mean, easier/harder schedules, personnel or coaching changes, etc.)  But the numbers are the numbers, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.

 
Interesting stuff. Seems like a classic regressing to the mean type of situation, but it's cool to see actual data.

 
I would attribute a good chunk of it to who you end up playing in season X + 1 because of your finish in season X....not real sure, but a 5 game swing in record might often be the difference in playing a last place schedule instead of a first place schedule.... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
I would attribute a good chunk of it to who you end up playing in season X + 1 because of your finish in season X....not real sure, but a 5 game swing in record might often be the difference in playing a last place schedule instead of a first place schedule.... 

and then also the divisions like the AFC west last year where you had two teams with 12 wins.....one would think you might want to stay away form the divison who has to play that particular year against a stacked division....
Click to expand...
The "first place schedule" is more of a myth than anything else. Each year, all teams in a division play 14 common opponents (6 in division games, 4 games against a same conference division, 4 games against an out of conference division). The only variation between teams is the 2 remaining games, where the 1st place team faces the 1st place team in the two remaining same conference division, 2nd place vs. 2nd place, 3rd place vs. 3rd place, and last place vs. last place. Certainly that makes a difference if a team draws the 1st place team from the AFC East (NE) compared to the 3rd place team (BUF).

So overall, each team has 6 games guaranteed the same each year (in division opponents), 7 guaranteed different opponents (the 4 out of conference teams and 3 inter conference games . . . you have to play at least one team from the same division as the year before.). For example, an AFC East team that played the AFC West team will still have to play an AFC West team the following year.

IMO, the X + 1 recalibration of close games to the norm really doesn't have much to do with the schedule . . . but I am not sure there is a way to prove or disprove it.

However, each year there may be a divisional record adjustment based on the divisions those teams had to face. You mentioned the AFC West. They played the NFC South (mostly a down year besides ATL) and the AFC South (no upper tier teams) last year. This year, the AFC West draws the AFC East (Jets should be an easy win but NE a high chance of a loss) and the NFC East (4 decent teams). 

Based on their opponents last year, the Chiefs and Raiders may have benefited from an easier schedule. And they may have tougher opponents this season (at least on paper). But every year is different. Again,I am unsure how to filter the schedule from YEAR X to YEAR X + 1 and if that truly matters or not.

 
Anarchy99 said:
Of the teams with excellent records in one possession games, those team's records in close (one possession) games was a combined 129-27 (.827) in YEAR X. In YEAR X + 1, those teams combined to have a 73.5-65.5 (.525) record in one possession game. The overall win total of those teams fell off by an average of 3.25 wins. As a quirk, the only teams that actually improved their record the following year were the 2006, 2008, and 2012 Colts. But for 31 other franchises, having a +5 win differential in close games meant a decrease in their win total the following year.

For the teams on the wrong side of close games, they ALL had better overall record in all games the following season. In YEAR X, the combined record in one score games was 32-143 (.183). In YEAR X + 1, those teams posted a record of 89-77 (.536) in one score games. The average win total on average over the full season was +4 wins.
Click to expand...
I might be the only one, but I'm somewhat in awe of this statistic.

Think of all the reasons teams can point to for being better or worse than last season - coaching changes, FA signings and losses, trades, draft picks, new offensive and defensive philosophies based on all those new coaches and players, schedule changes, injuries, etc., etc. You'd think it would be somewhat common that the combination of all these factors would overwhelm this data point, and you'd see plenty of teams go from "average" to "good" or "bad", even when the "average" really meant "average but lucky" or "average but unlucky" respectively.

But that's not what this shows! It shows that if you got really lucky in close games last year, your W-L record this year - not just in close games but overall - is very likely to be worse ... or if unlucky, better ... despite all those other factors. A single data point determined largely by luck has the power to outweigh the combined impact of all the other things teams do all year on the field and off.

I'm always having to remind myself that this sport is way more random than people think.

 
Anarchy99 said:
First I researched all team records from 2006-2015 to identify "extreme" records in one possession games. I arbitrarily selected +5 win differential and -5 loss loss differential as "extreme." By that I mean, I considered teams that went 6-1, 7-2, 0-6, etc. in one score games. I defined "one possession" as a W or L by 8 points or less.

In that 10 year stretch, there were 18 teams that had a differential of +5 in the win column in close games. There were 19 teams that had -5 on the wrong side of their ledger (5 more losses than wins in one possession game). I also looked up how those teams fared in season X + 1. I hypothesized that winning or losing close games would typically even out, as it is extremely difficult to keep winning close games (and equally unlikely to keep losing them). As a side note, I found that poor teams actually got more of their wins in close games, as they were unlikely to win many games by 9 or more points (but very likely to get trounced).

Of the teams with excellent records in one possession games, those team's records in close (one possession) games was a combined 129-27 (.827) in YEAR X. In YEAR X + 1, those teams combined to have a 73.5-65.5 (.525) record in one possession game. The overall win total of those teams fell off by an average of 3.25 wins. As a quirk, the only teams that actually improved their record the following year were the 2006, 2008, and 2012 Colts. But for 31 other franchises, having a +5 win differential in close games meant a decrease in their win total the following year.

For the teams on the wrong side of close games, they ALL had better overall record in all games the following season. In YEAR X, the combined record in one score games was 32-143 (.183). In YEAR X + 1, those teams posted a record of 89-77 (.536) in one score games. The average win total on average over the full season was +4 wins.

I am sure by now some of you are thinking WHO CARES?!? 

But the 2016 saw an inordinate number of teams that qualified in both the +5 wins and -5 losses categories in one possession games. OAK (9-2), MIA (8-2), NYG (8-3), and DAL (7-2) were the teams on the +5 wins side. JAX (2-8), LAC (4-9), CIN (1.5-6.5), PHI (1-6), and CHI (1-6) were the teams that things went south in close games.

Clearly not everything will work out exactly to previous patterns and averages, but based on history, the expected records of those teams this year would be:

OAK 12-4 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
MIA 10-6 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
NYG 11-5 in 2016 to 8-8 in 2017
DAL 13-3 in 2016 to 10-6 in 2017
JAX 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 to 10.5-5.5 in 2017
PHI 7-9 in 2016 to 11-5 in 2017
CHI 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017

W certainly can revisit this once the season is over to see the same trend continues. There may be other factors at play here as well (healthy teams vs. unhealthy teams, general regression or improvement to the mean, easier/harder schedules, personnel or coaching changes, etc.)  But the numbers are the numbers, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Click to expand...
Good stuff as always anarchy. :thumbup:

If there's one team I'd bet on bucking that trend it's the Giants, I just don't see them ending up. 500 or worse if they stay healthy.  But they were on the opposite end of this in 2015, 3-8 in one score games.  So in essence their luck evened out already. 

 
-OZ- said:
Good stuff as always anarchy. :thumbup:

If there's one team I'd bet on bucking that trend it's the Giants, I just don't see them ending up. 500 or worse if they stay healthy.  But they were on the opposite end of this in 2015, 3-8 in one score games.  So in essence their luck evened out already. 
Click to expand...
So they had one year with bad luck (6 wins) to one with some better luck (11 wins). If the truth is somewhere in the middle (8-9 wins), that would be pretty close to what the YEAR X + 1 numbers would suggest for 2017.

Somewhat related to the record in close games metric is the points differential totals for teams. A lot of the same teams with good records in close games had unimpressive scoring differentials last season . . .

MIA -17
NYG +26
OAK +31

There were also other teams with some weird scoring differentials . . .

HOU -49
CIN +10
ARI +56
TEN +3
PHI +36
DET -12
TBB -15
BUF +21
LAC -13
GBP +44

I am still trying to figure out if there is any predictive value or trends in scoring differential from YEAR X to YEAR X +1, so I can't really definitely comment. But some of the teams I just listed are getting a lot of hype (and some others ignored) when some of the numbers don't really coincide with the conclusions some folks are making for projections in 2017.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: ZWK
Anarchy99 said:
So they had one year with bad luck (6 wins) to one with some better luck (11 wins). If the truth is somewhere in the middle (8-9 wins), that would be pretty close to what the YEAR X + 1 numbers would suggest for 2017.

Somewhat related to the record in close games metric is the points differential totals for teams. A lot of the same teams with good records in close games had unimpressive scoring differentials last season . . .

MIA -17
NYG +26
OAK +31

There were also other teams with some weird scoring differentials . . .

HOU -49
CIN +10
ARI +56
TEN +3
PHI +36
DET -12
TBB -15
BUF +21
LAC -13
GBP +44

I am still trying to figure out if there is any predictive value or trends in scoring differential from YEAR X to YEAR X +1, so I can't really definitely comment. But some of the teams I just listed are getting a lot of hype (and some others ignored) when some of the numbers don't really coincide with the conclusions some folks are making for projections in 2017.
Click to expand...
Probably because most of us are assuming better records based on perceived improvements to their roster.  Most of us are predicting the Titans and Bucs to improve due to their QBs increased experience and assuming their rookie picks pan out at least to some degree. 

Your analysis is very helpful in reminding us that we really shouldn't just use last year's record as a baseline but maybe start with the predictive model and make adjustments from there.

 Maybe the baseline for the Titans is 8 wins and the Bucs 7, based on point deferential, but I'd probably still add 3 wins for qb experience and additions to their rosters. 

 
-OZ- said:
 Maybe the baseline for the Titans is 8 wins and the Bucs 7, based on point deferential, but I'd probably still add 3 wins for qb experience and additions to their rosters. 
Click to expand...
The last few years the AFC South has been pretty weak. Over the last three seasons, the division as a whole has gone 43-77 against the other 7 divisions (.358) with IND the best of the bunch at 14-16. The Titans did well against out of division foes last year (7-3), which is probably a good sign. But overall I am not convinced that there is a real contender from that division.

If anyone was interested, here's how each division fared over the past three seasons outside of divisional games.

AFC East 69-51 .575
AFC West 69-51 .575
NFC North 63-57 .525
NFC East 61-58-1 .513
NFC West 59-59-2 .500
AFC North 58-60-2 .492
NFC South 55-64-1 .463
AFC South 43-77 .358

 
Anarchy99 said:
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
Click to expand...
Chargers fans can only hope.

There are several valid reasons for improvement, though, including new coaching staff, better health, and better OL. All of those areas were terrible last year (the last few years, really), so the expected improvements could be substantial.

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the Chargers and all AFC West teams have tougher schedules this year, so that may mask some of the improvements.

 
Anarchy99 said:
So they had one year with bad luck (6 wins) to one with some better luck (11 wins). If the truth is somewhere in the middle (8-9 wins), that would be pretty close to what the YEAR X + 1 numbers would suggest for 2017.

Somewhat related to the record in close games metric is the points differential totals for teams. A lot of the same teams with good records in close games had unimpressive scoring differentials last season . . .

MIA -17
NYG +26
OAK +31

There were also other teams with some weird scoring differentials . . .

HOU -49
CIN +10
ARI +56
TEN +3
PHI +36
DET -12
TBB -15
BUF +21
LAC -13
GBP +44

I am still trying to figure out if there is any predictive value or trends in scoring differential from YEAR X to YEAR X +1, so I can't really definitely comment. But some of the teams I just listed are getting a lot of hype (and some others ignored) when some of the numbers don't really coincide with the conclusions some folks are making for projections in 2017.
Click to expand...
This is what I was going to bring up - I suspect that scoring differential is a better predictor than W-L record. Here are last year's teams sorted by scoring differential:

191    New England Patriots*    (14-2)
134    Atlanta Falcons*    (11-5)
115    Dallas Cowboys*    (13-3)
78    Kansas City Chiefs*    (12-4)
72    Pittsburgh Steelers*    (11-5)
62    Seattle Seahawks*    (10-5-1)
56    Arizona Cardinals    (7-8-1)
44    Green Bay Packers*    (10-6)
36    Philadelphia Eagles    (7-9)
36    Denver Broncos    (9-7)
31    Oakland Raiders+    (12-4)
26    New York Giants+    (11-5)
22    Baltimore Ravens    (8-8)
21    Buffalo Bills    (7-9)
20    Minnesota Vikings    (8-8)
19    Indianapolis Colts    (8-8)
15    New Orleans Saints    (7-9)
13    Washington Redskins    (8-7-1)
10    Cincinnati Bengals    (6-9-1)
3    Tennessee Titans    (9-7)
-12    Detroit Lions+    (9-7)
-13    San Diego Chargers    (5-11)
-15    Tampa Bay Buccaneers    (9-7)
-17    Miami Dolphins+    (10-6)
-33    Carolina Panthers    (6-10)
-49    Houston Texans*    (9-7)
-82    Jacksonville Jaguars    (3-13)
-120    Chicago Bears    (3-13)
-134    New York Jets    (5-11)
-170    Los Angeles Rams    (4-12)
-171    San Francisco 49ers    (2-14)
-188    Cleveland Browns    (1-15)

* division winner, + wild card

 
Pretty clearly point differential is a major factor in determining the outcome of a given season, but I haven't seen a common theme in using scoring differential to predict records in the FOLLOWING season. For example . . .

In the 10 seasons from 2006-2015, there were only 5 times where a team had a positive point differential on the season but a losing record. Those teams in YEAR X had a combined +87 point differential but finished a combined 33-47 (.413). In YEAR X + 1, 4 of the 5 teams performed much better, bringing the combined point differential up to +451 points with a combined record of 51-29 (.638) that following season. That would tend to give some credence to the axiom of a team being "better than their record indicated" as it pertained to YEAR X.

What about teams that had a winning record but had a negative scoring differential? That also only happened 5 times in 10 years. Those teams combined to have a -56 point scoring differential with a combined record of 46-33-1 (.581). One of those teams, of course, was the SB winning 2011 NYG. One would think that those teams "got lucky" and probably won more games then they should have . . . and one might think that their record would adjust accordingly (downward) the following year.

But those 5 teams improved to a combined +317 point differential in YEAR X + 1 and went a combined 51-29 (.638) . . . which coincidentally was the same exact record as the teams I just listed in the "positive point differential but losing records" category. The only team that did worse was the 2012 NYG.

And I only mention all that here, as 2016 had 3 teams in each category:

2016 MIA 10-6 record, -17 point differential
2016 HOU 9-7 record, -49 point differential
2016 DET 9-7 record, -15 point differential
2016 BUF 7-9 record, +21 point differential
2016 NOS 7-9 record, +15 point differential
2016 CIN 6-9-1 record, +10 point differential

It is a bit quirky that on average there had been only 1 team each year to fall into one of those categories and then there were 6 in the same season. Give that the sample size is almost invisible, I would not put a lot of stock in looking at the previous outcomes and drawing any firm conclusions. Just a weird anomaly that occurred in 2016.  

 
Here is another factor to consider.

Whether or not a team switches starting QBs.  Only ONE of NINE teams last year that switched starting QBs last year improved their previous season's W/L record.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/articles/view/the-dallas-cowboys-were-the-only-team-to-benefit-by-switching-quarterbacks

The Dallas Cowboys were the only Team to Benefit by Switching Quarterbacks in 2016

By Chris Malumphy

...Results were mixed, but overall for the worse. The Dallas Cowboys improved dramatically. The Houston Texans and the Philadelphia Eagles each finished with the same record both seasons. The Denver Broncos, Minnesota Vikings, Los Angeles Rams, Chicago Bears, San Francisco 49ers, and Cleveland Browns all fared worse than the year before.

...Looking forward to the 2017 season it is already evident that the Rams, 49ers, Bears, Texans and likely the Browns will once again have changes at quarterback with new leaders in pass attempts. The New York Jets will also join that group as may some other teams whose quarterbacks may be felled either by injury or sub par play.
Click to expand...
The above information 'could' help explain the -49 scoring differential from Houston last year even though they qualified for the playoffs but they are once again switching starting QBs so the odds are they won't improve their W/L record from last season.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
Here is another factor to consider.

Whether or not a team switches starting QBs.  Only ONE of NINE teams last year that switched starting QBs last year improved their previous season's W/L record.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/articles/view/the-dallas-cowboys-were-the-only-team-to-benefit-by-switching-quarterbacks

The above information 'could' help explain the -49 scoring differential from Houston last year even though they qualified for the playoffs but they are once again switching starting QBs so the odds are they won't improve their W/L record from last season.
Click to expand...
The switching QB stuff really doesn't pertain to the record in close games though. Of the 9 teams with extreme W/L records in close game, DAL and PHI were the only teams with a different QB. OAK, MIA, NYG, JAX, LAC, CIN, and CHI all had the same QB for the majority of the year.

As far as "switching QB's" goes, DAL was good two years prior with Romo and did horrible without him in 2015. IMO, DAL would have been a 12 win team with Romo last year, so I wouldn't exactly call the Cowboys a team that made a voluntary change at QB.

 
As far as what happens when teams "switch QBs" from one year to the next, I was curious and looked up the following. I reviewed each time a team had a different QB lead the team in passing yardage from one year to the next. Going back 10 years, it happened 122 times (whether it be by choice or injury):

WITH QB 1 IN YEAR X: 804-1146-2(.412)

WITH QB 2 IN YEAR X+1: 839-1110-3 (.431)

So basically the average team went from 6.6 wins the first year to 6.9 wins the following year.

Note that the Steelers, Giants, Saints, and Chargers all had the same QB lead the team in passing for all 10 seasons.

 
Anarchy99 said:
The "first place schedule" is more of a myth than anything else. Each year, all teams in a division play 14 common opponents (6 in division games, 4 games against a same conference division, 4 games against an out of conference division). The only variation between teams is the 2 remaining games, where the 1st place team faces the 1st place team in the two remaining same conference division, 2nd place vs. 2nd place, 3rd place vs. 3rd place, and last place vs. last place. Certainly that makes a difference if a team draws the 1st place team from the AFC East (NE) compared to the 3rd place team (BUF).
Click to expand...
That might be a myth now with how fast teams change with free agency but this used to be a real thing. I remember the lions with Barry would do great with that last place schedule, win the division and the finish last the next year.

 
voiceofunreason said:
That might be a myth now with how fast teams change with free agency but this used to be a real thing. I remember the lions with Barry would do great with that last place schedule, win the division and the finish last the next year.
Click to expand...
I don't recall how they determined the schedule back in the day, but since they made eight 4 team divisions in 2092, the schedule template has remained the same every year.  It's a big of a luck of the draw as to which in conference and which out of conference division you get, but the teams in your division have to face mostly the same opponents. As already indicated, there are only two games with tougher opponents (and with teams not playing the same from year to year  those opponents could be way easier or harder than expected). 

 
Anarchy99 said:
Pretty clearly point differential is a major factor in determining the outcome of a given season, but I haven't seen a common theme in using scoring differential to predict records in the FOLLOWING season. For example . . .

In the 10 seasons from 2006-2015, there were only 5 times where a team had a positive point differential on the season but a losing record. Those teams in YEAR X had a combined +87 point differential but finished a combined 33-47 (.413). In YEAR X + 1, 4 of the 5 teams performed much better, bringing the combined point differential up to +451 points with a combined record of 51-29 (.638) that following season. That would tend to give some credence to the axiom of a team being "better than their record indicated" as it pertained to YEAR X.

What about teams that had a winning record but had a negative scoring differential? That also only happened 5 times in 10 years. Those teams combined to have a -56 point scoring differential with a combined record of 46-33-1 (.581). One of those teams, of course, was the SB winning 2011 NYG. One would think that those teams "got lucky" and probably won more games then they should have . . . and one might think that their record would adjust accordingly (downward) the following year.

But those 5 teams improved to a combined +317 point differential in YEAR X + 1 and went a combined 51-29 (.638) . . . which coincidentally was the same exact record as the teams I just listed in the "positive point differential but losing records" category. The only team that did worse was the 2012 NYG.

And I only mention all that here, as 2016 had 3 teams in each category:

2016 MIA 10-6 record, -17 point differential
2016 HOU 9-7 record, -49 point differential
2016 DET 9-7 record, -15 point differential
2016 BUF 7-9 record, +21 point differential
2016 NOS 7-9 record, +15 point differential
2016 CIN 6-9-1 record, +10 point differential

It is a bit quirky that on average there had been only 1 team each year to fall into one of those categories and then there were 6 in the same season. Give that the sample size is almost invisible, I would not put a lot of stock in looking at the previous outcomes and drawing any firm conclusions. Just a weird anomaly that occurred in 2016.  
Click to expand...
For the teams in 2016, shouldn't the Cardinals and Eagles also be on your list of teams with positive point differentials and losing records and Tamps added to the teams with a winning record but negative point differential?

I feel like I must be misreading you, so sorry in advance if I am... but are you saying that in 2016 there were the same number of positive differential/losing record teams as there had been in the prior decade, combined?

"...from 2006-2015, there were only 5 times where a team had a positive point differential on the season but a losing record."

56    Arizona Cardinals    (7-8-1)
36    Philadelphia Eagles    (7-9)
21    Buffalo Bills    (7-9)
15    New Orleans Saints    (7-9)
10    Cincinnati Bengals    (6-9-1)

 
voiceofunreason said:
That might be a myth now with how fast teams change with free agency but this used to be a real thing. I remember the lions with Barry would do great with that last place schedule, win the division and the finish last the next year.
Click to expand...
"Remember" is a pretty strong word.

The Lions won the division twice during Sanders' career, and finished second once. The first time they won was in 1991, and they did indeed finish last in the division in 1992. Then in 1993 they won again, but that was the first of three wild-card seasons in a row. 

Was Detroit's poor performance in 1992 a result of a change in strength of schedule? They did have a relatively strong schedule that year (SOS 1.81), but that wouldn't explain why they lost to the 5-11 Tampa Bay Bucs and the 5-11 Chicago Bears. It probably has more to do with the fact that they threw more INTs than TDs.

I think Anarchy's analysis is good. I would be shocked to see any other result, though. Almost every analysis of "clutchness" in sports has come up with extremely weak correlations, if anything at all.

 
CalBear said:
"Remember" is a pretty strong word.

The Lions won the division twice during Sanders' career, and finished second once. The first time they won was in 1991, and they did indeed finish last in the division in 1992. Then in 1993 they won again, but that was the first of three wild-card seasons in a row. 

Was Detroit's poor performance in 1992 a result of a change in strength of schedule? They did have a relatively strong schedule that year (SOS 1.81), but that wouldn't explain why they lost to the 5-11 Tampa Bay Bucs and the 5-11 Chicago Bears. It probably has more to do with the fact that they threw more INTs than TDs.

I think Anarchy's analysis is good. I would be shocked to see any other result, though. Almost every analysis of "clutchness" in sports has come up with extremely weak correlations, if anything at all.
Click to expand...
I don't recall exactly how schedules were generated back then, but it wasn't the same as it is now. Like Anarchy mentioned, right now it's almost entirely predetermined except for 2 games. I'm quite certain it was a lot more variable back then.

 
Brisco54 said:
For the teams in 2016, shouldn't the Cardinals and Eagles also be on your list of teams with positive point differentials and losing records and Tamps added to the teams with a winning record but negative point differential?

I feel like I must be misreading you, so sorry in advance if I am... but are you saying that in 2016 there were the same number of positive differential/losing record teams as there had been in the prior decade, combined?

"...from 2006-2015, there were only 5 times where a team had a positive point differential on the season but a losing record."

56    Arizona Cardinals    (7-8-1)
36    Philadelphia Eagles    (7-9)
21    Buffalo Bills    (7-9)
15    New Orleans Saints    (7-9)
10    Cincinnati Bengals    (6-9-1)
Click to expand...
Yes, both the Bucs and Cards should have been listed. I had them on my list, just forgot to type them in my post. Again, last year had some really funky outcomes compared to the prior decade. Who knows if any of those items will be a predictor for 2017. 

 
this thread ...8 points...or basically one TD..you need playmakers....guys that make a play/plays during the course of a game that ends up being the difference.....it can take you from a -5 to  +5 is a season if you have a playmaker or two....

 
I got some data together (here) and ran some correlations. For 2002-2016, a team's winning percentage in year n is correlated with its winning percentage in year n+1 at r=0.31. A team's point differential in year n is correlated with its winning percentage in year n+1 at r=0.35. In other words, if you're trying to predict next year's winning percentage, then you are better off looking at this year's point differential rather than this year's winning percentage.

r=0.31 and r=0.35 seem pretty close together, but a team's winning percentage and point differential within the same year are extremely closely related (r=0.92), so that is actually about as far apart as they could plausibly be. Looking at points works better than looking at wins.

How big is the effect? If you are comparing wins from one year to the next, every 3.2 extra wins in one year is associated with 1 more win the next year (e.g., on average an 11.2-4.8 team becomes 9-7). If you are comparing points in one year with wins the next year, every 93 points one year is associated with 1 more win the next year.

Football Outsiders has a table with similar numbers in their FAQ, in response to the question "Does DVOA really work?".

 
Anarchy99 said:
But the 2016 saw an inordinate number of teams that qualified in both the +5 wins and -5 losses categories in one possession games. OAK (9-2), MIA (8-2), NYG (8-3), and DAL (7-2) were the teams on the +5 wins side. JAX (2-8), LAC (4-9), CIN (1.5-6.5), PHI (1-6), and CHI (1-6) were the teams that things went south in close games.

Clearly not everything will work out exactly to previous patterns and averages, but based on history, the expected records of those teams this year would be:

OAK 12-4 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
MIA 10-6 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
NYG 11-5 in 2016 to 8-8 in 2017
DAL 13-3 in 2016 to 10-6 in 2017
JAX 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 to 10.5-5.5 in 2017
PHI 7-9 in 2016 to 11-5 in 2017
CHI 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017

W certainly can revisit this once the season is over to see the same trend continues. There may be other factors at play here as well (healthy teams vs. unhealthy teams, general regression or improvement to the mean, easier/harder schedules, personnel or coaching changes, etc.)  But the numbers are the numbers, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Click to expand...
@Insein @Bigboy10182000

 
Anarchy99 said:
First I researched all team records from 2006-2015 to identify "extreme" records in one possession games. I arbitrarily selected +5 win differential and -5 loss loss differential as "extreme." By that I mean, I considered teams that went 6-1, 7-2, 0-6, etc. in one score games. I defined "one possession" as a W or L by 8 points or less.

In that 10 year stretch, there were 18 teams that had a differential of +5 in the win column in close games. There were 19 teams that had -5 on the wrong side of their ledger (5 more losses than wins in one possession game). I also looked up how those teams fared in season X + 1. I hypothesized that winning or losing close games would typically even out, as it is extremely difficult to keep winning close games (and equally unlikely to keep losing them). As a side note, I found that poor teams actually got more of their wins in close games, as they were unlikely to win many games by 9 or more points (but very likely to get trounced).

Of the teams with excellent records in one possession games, those team's records in close (one possession) games was a combined 129-27 (.827) in YEAR X. In YEAR X + 1, those teams combined to have a 73.5-65.5 (.525) record in one possession game. The overall win total of those teams fell off by an average of 3.25 wins. As a quirk, the only teams that actually improved their record the following year were the 2006, 2008, and 2012 Colts. But for 31 other franchises, having a +5 win differential in close games meant a decrease in their win total the following year.

For the teams on the wrong side of close games, they ALL had better overall record in all games the following season. In YEAR X, the combined record in one score games was 32-143 (.183). In YEAR X + 1, those teams posted a record of 89-77 (.536) in one score games. The average win total on average over the full season was +4 wins.

I am sure by now some of you are thinking WHO CARES?!? 

But the 2016 saw an inordinate number of teams that qualified in both the +5 wins and -5 losses categories in one possession games. OAK (9-2), MIA (8-2), NYG (8-3), and DAL (7-2) were the teams on the +5 wins side. JAX (2-8), LAC (4-9), CIN (1.5-6.5), PHI (1-6), and CHI (1-6) were the teams that things went south in close games.

Clearly not everything will work out exactly to previous patterns and averages, but based on history, the expected records of those teams this year would be:

OAK 12-4 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
MIA 10-6 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
NYG 11-5 in 2016 to 8-8 in 2017
DAL 13-3 in 2016 to 10-6 in 2017
JAX 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 to 10.5-5.5 in 2017
PHI 7-9 in 2016 to 11-5 in 2017
CHI 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017

W certainly can revisit this once the season is over to see the same trend continues. There may be other factors at play here as well (healthy teams vs. unhealthy teams, general regression or improvement to the mean, easier/harder schedules, personnel or coaching changes, etc.)  But the numbers are the numbers, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Click to expand...
Awesome analysis on a subject that I personally would not have even thought of or considered. Kudos to you for taking the time to do this analysis--and double kudos for sharing the information with us.  Much appreciated and I personally found it to be very well thought out.  

 
Anarchy99 said:
First I researched all team records from 2006-2015 to identify "extreme" records in one possession games. I arbitrarily selected +5 win differential and -5 loss loss differential as "extreme." By that I mean, I considered teams that went 6-1, 7-2, 0-6, etc. in one score games. I defined "one possession" as a W or L by 8 points or less.

In that 10 year stretch, there were 18 teams that had a differential of +5 in the win column in close games. There were 19 teams that had -5 on the wrong side of their ledger (5 more losses than wins in one possession game). I also looked up how those teams fared in season X + 1. I hypothesized that winning or losing close games would typically even out, as it is extremely difficult to keep winning close games (and equally unlikely to keep losing them). As a side note, I found that poor teams actually got more of their wins in close games, as they were unlikely to win many games by 9 or more points (but very likely to get trounced).

Of the teams with excellent records in one possession games, those team's records in close (one possession) games was a combined 129-27 (.827) in YEAR X. In YEAR X + 1, those teams combined to have a 73.5-65.5 (.525) record in one possession game. The overall win total of those teams fell off by an average of 3.25 wins. As a quirk, the only teams that actually improved their record the following year were the 2006, 2008, and 2012 Colts. But for 31 other franchises, having a +5 win differential in close games meant a decrease in their win total the following year.

For the teams on the wrong side of close games, they ALL had better overall record in all games the following season. In YEAR X, the combined record in one score games was 32-143 (.183). In YEAR X + 1, those teams posted a record of 89-77 (.536) in one score games. The average win total on average over the full season was +4 wins.

I am sure by now some of you are thinking WHO CARES?!? 

But the 2016 saw an inordinate number of teams that qualified in both the +5 wins and -5 losses categories in one possession games. OAK (9-2), MIA (8-2), NYG (8-3), and DAL (7-2) were the teams on the +5 wins side. JAX (2-8), LAC (4-9), CIN (1.5-6.5), PHI (1-6), and CHI (1-6) were the teams that things went south in close games.

Clearly not everything will work out exactly to previous patterns and averages, but based on history, the expected records of those teams this year would be:

OAK 12-4 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
MIA 10-6 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
NYG 11-5 in 2016 to 8-8 in 2017
DAL 13-3 in 2016 to 10-6 in 2017
JAX 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017
LAC 5-11 in 2016 to 9-7 in 2017
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 to 10.5-5.5 in 2017
PHI 7-9 in 2016 to 11-5 in 2017
CHI 3-13 in 2016 to 7-9 in 2017

W certainly can revisit this once the season is over to see the same trend continues. There may be other factors at play here as well (healthy teams vs. unhealthy teams, general regression or improvement to the mean, easier/harder schedules, personnel or coaching changes, etc.)  But the numbers are the numbers, and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Click to expand...
Here's how things turned out . . .

OAK 12-4 in 2016 . . . projected to 9-7 in 2017 . . . actual 6-10 in 2017.
MIA 10-6 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 6-10 in 2017.
NYG 11-5 in 2016 . . . projected to 8-8 in 2017 . . . actual 3-13 in 2017.
DAL 13-3 in 2016 . . . projected to 10-6 in 2017 . . . actual 9-7 in 2017.
JAX 3-13 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 10-6 in 2017.
LAC 5-11 in 2016 . . . projected to 9-7 in 2017 . . . actual 9-7 in 2017.
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 . . . projected to to 10.5-5.5 in 2017 . . . actual 7-9 in 2017.
PHI 7-9 in 2016 . . . projected to 11-5 in 2017 . . . actual 13-3 in 2017.
CHI 3-13 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 5-11 in 2017.

Overall, all the team records went in the direction they were projected to go. The huge majority of team's predicted to drop off dropped off more than expected. The teams on the short side of close games in 2016 all did better, maybe not as many wins as expected but still trending the right way.

But in the main this was a pretty accurate predictor. I will look at the 2017 outcomes to see who qualifies this season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99 said:
Here's how things turned out . . .

OAK 12-4 in 2016 . . . projected to 9-7 in 2017 . . . actual 6-10 in 2017.
MIA 10-6 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 6-10 in 2017.
NYG 11-5 in 2016 . . . projected to 8-8 in 2017 . . . actual 3-13 in 2017.
DAL 13-3 in 2016 . . . projected to 10-6 in 2017 . . . actual 9-7 in 2017.
JAX 3-13 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 10-6 in 2017.
LAC 5-11 in 2016 . . . projected to 9-7 in 2017 . . . actual 9-7 in 2017.
CIN 6.5-9.5 in 2016 . . . projected to to 10.5-5.5 in 2017 . . . actual 7-9 in 2017.
PHI 7-9 in 2016 . . . projected to 11.5 in 2017 . . . actual 13-3 in 2017.
CHI 3-13 in 2016 . . . projected to 7-9 in 2017 . . . actual 5-11 in 2017.

Overall, all the team records went in the direction they were projected to go. The huge majority of team's predicted to drop off dropped off more than expected. The teams on the short side of close games in 2016 all did better, maybe not as many wins as expected but still trending the right way.

But in the main this was a pretty accurate predictor. I will look at the 2017 outcomes to see who qualifies this season.
Click to expand...
Wow.  Impressive.

 
ESPN's Bill Barnwell has written a lot about this topic. Other "outlier" stats to keep an eye on: Point differential, fumble recovery rate (causing fumbles is a skill, recovering them is random), starters games lost to injury. If teams do particularly well or badly in those stats in one year, there's a good chance you will see regression the following year.

One caveat to the record in close games: Certain QBs like Brady, Manning and Luck have managed to maintain positive records in that category throughout their careers. That's relatively self-explanatory, but Bruce Arians also managed to defy gravity with both the Colts and the Cardinals (or at least, he had the last time I read about this a couple years ago; it's possible he dropped off over the past two seasons).

 
The only teams that fit the profile from this year are . . .

CAR 8-1
PIT 8-2
CLE 0-6

So next year, if things hold true . . .

PIT 10-6
CAR 8-8
CLE 4-12

 
Anarchy99 said:
The only teams that fit the profile from this year are . . .

CAR 8-1
PIT 8-2
CLE 0-6

So next year, if things hold true . . .

PIT 10-6
CAR 8-8
CLE 4-12
Click to expand...
If Ben retires the Steelers would be fortunate to finish with a winning record.  If Ben retires and LeVeon is not franchised/re-signed the Steelers may be sub .500.

 
Bucs had 7 losses by 6 points or less and 6 by 5 points or less.  They would have been -4 by this metric though as 3 of their wins were also of the "one possession" variety.  Cool stuff.

 
Grahamburn said:
Bucs had 7 losses by 6 points or less and 6 by 5 points or less.  They would have been -4 by this metric though as 3 of their wins were also of the "one possession" variety.  Cool stuff.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't fall in the range. They were 3-7 in one possession games (I used a differential of +/- 5 games).

 
2016 point differential also worked out pretty well as a predictor of 2017 record. Across all 32 teams, 2016 winning percentage predicted 2017 winning percentage with r=0.26 while 2016 point differential predicted 2017 winning percentage with r=0.46.

Looking at the 8 teams whose 2016 record and point differential were most out of alignment (off by 2+ games), for 7 out of 8 their 2016 point differential did a better job than their record of predicting what they'd do in 2017.

First, the 4 teams who won at least 2 more games than they "should have" in 2016 based on their point differential, who we'd expect to decline in 2017:

+3.1 Oakland Raiders in 2016: 12-4, +31 PD. In 2017: 6-10.
+2.5 Miami Dolphins in 2016: 10-6, -17 PD. In 2017: 6-10.
+2.4 Houston Texans in 2016: 9-7, -49 PD. In 2017: 4-12.
+2.3 New York Giants in 2016: 11-5, +26 PD. In 2017: 3-13.

All 4 did decline, by even more than expected. Average 2016 record: 10.5-5.5. Average 2016 point differential: -2. Average 2017 record: 4.75-11.25.

And the 4 teams who won at least 2 games fewer than they "should have" in 2016 based on their point differential, who we'd expect to improve in 2017:

-2.7 Jacksonville Jaguars in 2016: 3-13, -82 PD. In 2017: 10-6.
-2.6 SD/LA Chargers in 2016: 5-11, -13 PD. In 2017: 9-7.
-2.1 Arizona Cardinals in 2016: 7-8-1, +56 PD. In 2017: 8-8.
-2.0 Philadelphia Eagles in 2016: 7-9, +36 PD. In 2017: 13-3.

All 4 did improve, though Arizona's 2017 record was closer to what you'd predict from their 2016 record than to what you'd predict from their 2016 point differential. Average 2016 record: 5.5-10.25-.25. Average 2016 point differential: -1. Average 2017 record: 10-6.

Looking ahead to next year, only 4 teams were 2+ games out of whack in 2017. Lowering the cutoff to 1.5 games out of whack gives 9 teams. The teams that most outperformed their point differential (and therefore should decline in 2018) are the Buffalo Bills (+2.6), Pittsburgh Steelers (+2.3), Carolina Panthers (+2.0), Arizona Cardinals (+1.9), and Tennessee Titans (+1.6). The teams that most underperformed their point differential (and therefore should improve in 2018) are the Cleveland Browns (-3.1), Jacksonville Jaguars (-2.2), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (-1.7), and Baltimore Ravens (-1.6).

 
Anarchy99 said:
The only teams that fit the profile from this year are . . .

CAR 8-1
PIT 8-2
CLE 0-6

So next year, if things hold true . . .

PIT 10-6
CAR 8-8
CLE 4-12
Click to expand...
darn, was hoping there would be more teams you could put through this

 
Deamon said:
darn, was hoping there would be more teams you could put through this
Click to expand...
There are. Just not from this year. I will look at years prior to 2006 (which was where I started), as that way we can look at the results from the following year right away and not have to wait months and months to see what happens. It will be interesting to see if the results are somewhat universal given that at some point lots of things about the game would be different (style of play, rules, free agency, etc.).

 
Anarchy99 said:
There are. Just not from this year. I will look at years prior to 2006 (which was where I started), as that way we can look at the results from the following year right away and not have to wait months and months to see what happens. It will be interesting to see if the results are somewhat universal given that at some point lots of things about the game would be different (style of play, rules, free agency, etc.).
Click to expand...
No I mean I wish there were more this year, so we could track it next year.  Or I could use for predictions next year.  :P

 
https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/951480282837864448 (click to view chart)

Bill Barnwell‏ @billbarnwell

Largest gaps between actual win-loss record and Pythagorean Expectation for 2017. Positive number suggests future decline (Bills, Steelers, Panthers) and negative number suggests improvement to come (Browns, Jags, …Buccaneers)
Click to expand...
Really surprised to see the Jags have so much room for improvement. I think it's because when their defense is dominating a game and their run game is working, they can blow a team out (the first Pitt game being a prime example).

 
As a side note, which teams changed the most from last year to this year? Here are the net changes in point differential from last year to this year.

Team 2017 2016 Net
LAR 149 -170 319
JAX 149 -82 231
PHI 162 36 126
SFO -52 -171 119
MIN 130 20 110
NOS 122 15 110
LAC 83 -13 96
BAL 92 22 70
CAR 36 -33 69
CHI -56 -120 64
NYJ -84 -134 50
DET 34 -12 46
PIT 98 72 26
CLE -176 -188 12
KCC 76 78 -2
TEN -22 3 -25
SEA 34 62 -28
NEP 162 191 -29
TBB -47 -15 -32
HOU -98 -49 -49
WAS -46 13 -59
CIN -59 10 -69
BUF -57 21 -78
DAL 22 115 -93
MIA -112 -17 -95
ATL 38 134 -96
OAK -72 31 -103
GBP -64 44 -108
ARI -66 56 -122
DEN -93 36 -129
IND -141 19 -160
NYG -142 26 -168


Buffalo performed significantly worse yet made the playoffs. Go figure. Atlanta really fell off on offense. They are another team that was light years worse scoring wise (but not record wise).

 
Godsbrother said:
Agreed though you have to think that Dallas win total was affected by Zeke's suspension.   Still damn impressive though.
Click to expand...
The Cowboys were 6-4 with Zeke and 3-3 without him. One of the wins with him was the last game of the season when the Eagles rested their starters for 75% of the game. I think at most, if Zeke had played all 16 games, the Cowboys would have gone 10-6. Which is what Anarchy's analysis projected they would go.

 
This year's qualifiers . . .

MIA 7-1
DAL 9-3
LAC 6-1
LAR 6-1

No teams qualified on the losing side.

This means if things follow the pattern, those teams in 2019 would be projected to finish:

MIA from 7-9 to 4-12
DAL from 10-6 to 7-9
LAC from 12-4 to 9-7
LAR from 13-3 to 10-6.

 
Good work with this thread. Sure beats clicking on someone's whining or temper tantrum.  My state recently approved sports betting, I will notebook this info and add it to my database.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anarchy99
NFL Team Records Over Their Past 17 Games
Replies
5
Views
284
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai
BobbyLayne
How is the parity in your redraft league?
Replies
48
Views
992
themeistersinger
themeistersinger
abrunn1133
Coaching is so Overrated in Pro Sports
Replies
38
Views
1K
Hot Sauce Guy
Hot Sauce Guy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top